Copy-and-paste prompt
This prompt works with any AI assistant that can review your website project or the information you share with it. That includes Claude, ChatGPT, Codex, Cursor and the assistants built into Lovable, Bolt and Replit.
What to give the assistant: Replace each bracketed field with information from your own website. If the assistant can inspect the project directly, give it access to the correct folder or repository as well.
Ask for the report first. Approve individual changes only after the assistant has shown you where it found each issue and you understand the proposed fix.
Help diagnose the following Google Search Console indexing information. I will paste exact examples or an exported table below. Do not assume every excluded URL is a problem and do not change the site.
[PASTE SEARCH CONSOLE EXAMPLES HERE]
For each URL:
1. Restate the reported status exactly.
2. Say whether the URL appears intended to be indexed, redirected, canonicalised or excluded. If intent is unknown, ask.
3. List the evidence needed from the live URL: status code, robots directives, canonical, rendered content, internal links and sitemap presence.
4. Explain the plausible causes, clearly separating evidence from hypotheses.
5. Recommend the smallest next diagnostic step before suggesting a fix.
6. Group repeated patterns so the same problem is not reported dozens of times.
7. Prioritise by important page templates and business impact, not raw URL count.
Return a table and a short investigation order. Do not promise indexing or recommend requesting indexing for every URL.When to use it
- When Search Console reports Crawled or Discovered – currently not indexed.
- When Google selects a different canonical.
- When many URLs appear excluded and you need to distinguish expected exclusions from problems.
What it checks
- Indexing intent
- Canonical and directive conflicts
- Live response evidence
- Internal discovery and sitemap presence
- Template-level patterns
What it cannot prove
An AI assistant can inspect supplied code and information, but it should not be treated as independent evidence that Google can crawl, index or rank the website.
- The prompt is only as good as the Search Console evidence supplied.
- Some Google decisions cannot be reduced to a single technical cause.
- Commercial importance and content quality need manual assessment.
Worked example
This is an illustrative scenario rather than a client result.
Twenty URLs are reported as duplicates. The review separates deliberate campaign parameters from two service pages whose canonicals incorrectly point to the homepage, so only the genuine template problem is escalated.
Verify the result
After using the prompt, check every approved change on the published website. Save the original report and the final verification so you can see what actually changed.
Book a site review and we will check the live pages for you, or send us a message if you would like to describe the problem first. You can also browse the rest of the resources hub.